MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL ATISH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of interim bail given the complainant's lack of interest in the prosecution and the principle of consistency regarding a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court observed that the complainant and other prosecution witnesses had executed affidavits expressing their disinterest in pursuing the case against the petitioner. Furthermore, noting that a co-accused in the same matter had previously been granted bail, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief based on the rule of consistency. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds. The judgment reaffirms the principle of consistency in bail matters, holding that where a co-accused has been granted bail, the petitioner is similarly entitled to relief, particularly when prosecution witnesses express a lack of interest.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail confirmation based on the rule of consistency if a co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Does the execution of affidavits by prosecution witnesses expressing disinterest in the prosecution constitute a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, oner was allowed pre-arrest F.I.R. No,3 dated 6-1-2003 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Faisalabad under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, vide order dated 24-5-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Farzand Ali, complainant, Muhammad Siddique and Mubeen Arshad P. Ws. Executed affidavits that they are not interested in prosecution against the petitioner. The affidavits have been shown from the police file by the learned counsel for the State.
3. In view of the above, the allegation against the petitioner is only of receiving of illegal gratification of Rs,2,000. Co-accused of the petitioner Asghar Zafar has been allowed bail by this Court. In view of rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled for the relief. Reference may be had to Muhammad Afzal alias Bodi v. The State 1979 SCM R 9.
4. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and interim bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.